🚀 go-pugleaf

buckland@ucs.ubc.ca (Tony Buckland) wrote:

>In article <317c10df.19625691@news.ucs.ubc.ca>,
>James H. Steiger <steiger@unixg.ubc.ca> wrote:
>>The fact is, most drivers WANT to drive 60-70K down Westminster, and,
>>given the structure of the road, there is no reason (other than the
>>fact that the "authorities" need to generate revenue cheaply) why most
>>of us should not drive safely and effectively down Westminster at that
>>speed.  ...
>
> Congrats to Mr. Steiger for clarity.  Rarely is this position put
> so bluntly, right down to the block caps in "WANT".  However, Mr.
> Steiger and apparently far too many others need to be reminded
> about the basic structure of our society.  We live in a democracy,
> which means we elect representatives to go off and pass laws which
> we are then supposed to obey.  _That_ is the reason why we should not
> drive -- safely and effectively or otherwise -- down Westminster
> at whatever speed we want.  If Mr. Steiger finds this system so
> repugnant, perhaps he should go seek an anarchy somewhere and do
> exactly as he wishes until he runs into the annoying other features
> of anarchistic life.  Somalia and Liberia spring to mind.

Mr. Buckland has expressed his condemnation of the "anarchists" in our
midst several times.  It is not clear whether his posts are serious
commentary, or an attempt to present a parody of an anal retentive
and totally unrealistic individual. (I offer that statement, not as an
ad hominem, but as an honest comment on the content of your post, Mr.
Buckland), but I'll respond as if it were seriious by offering a few
brief comments.

First, the notion that we live in a "democracy" is itself open to
question. We live in a society that is controlled, to a very large 
degree, by moneyed interests, spin doctors, and media manipulators.

I live in Richmond. Several years ago, a wealthy land developer bought
up Terra Nova, got it rezoned, and made an estimated $40 million in
profits. At the time of the rezoning public hearing, hundreds of
Richmondites appeared to complain against the rezoning. They were
ignored by the city councilors who were very much in the pocket of the
developer.  

Exercising our democratic rights, we took to the streets with a grass
roots campaign, and voted out the city council by a 64% to 36% margin.
No sooner had we done so, than we discovered that certain members of
"our" group were "reconsidering" their stance to be more "moderate" on
issues of development.  These now moderated individuals, we note,
received their largest contributions in the last campaign through real
estate and development interests.  In other words, in the grand world
of "democratic" politics, money talks, and the vast majority of voters
are easily manipulated by slogans and buzzwords.  A perfect example
can be found in our drug laws, which criminalize marijuana usage,
while subsidizing tobacco use and making alcohol legal.  One senses
that a fair amount of money is paid by tobacco and alcohol interests
to protect the status quo.

Second, the notion that people who drive 60-70K down Westminster
represent some selfish, immature group of anarchists is laughable.
They are the vast majority of our citizens, including the local police
force and the B.C. Hydro Bus drivers. The law is, in this case,
totally stupid and everyone ignores it.  This is often the way people
act in a democracy, Mr. Buckland. Consider the actions of the Canadian
food and drug administration, which beats up on Health Food store
operators (banning potentially useful and generally harmless
substances like melatonin) while allowing very dangerous substances
like aspirin (responsible for numerous deaths and injuries every year)
and cold "remedies" (many of which are potentially harmful and
demonstrably almost useless) to be marketed freely.

Many laws exist only to protect the financial interests of special
interest groups.. 

Third, the majority of drivers do not drive down Westminster Highway
at "whatever speed they want." They drive at a safe and reasonable
speed, 60-70K.  It just so happens that the speed limit sign says 50K.
Most drivers adjust their speed to be close to what other drivers are
maintaining. Instant democracy, Mr. Buckland.

I have a question for you, Mr. Buckland. There are laws currently on
the books in a number of places in Canada and the U.S. outlawing oral
sex, either totally or on certain days of the week. In a number of
cases, the penalties are surprisingly severe.  These laws are
sufficiently stupid, and the public sufficiently Puritan, that nobody
has wanted to take the initiative to get them off the books.

Should these laws be ignored, Mr. Buckland, or should people wait
until they are changed?  If, for example, someone were prosecuted in
Vancouver for engaging in anal sex, would you support that
prosecution?  (After all, it may be possible to show that engaging in
anal sex offers a greater risk to society than driving 60K down
Westminster Highway.)

As a final rejoinder, let me tell you about democracy and the "law" on
an airline flight from LA to Vancouver in 1983.  

It was a very hot day, and the plane flight was delayed an hour and a
half. We were given "dinner allowance" which covered about half the
course of the greasy meal we ate in the airport restaurant. Once in
the plane, we sweltered for nearly 25 minutes before takeoff. 

At that point, someone suggested that the airline give us free drinks,
and the hostesses complied.  It was a small plane, with only two
toilets in the rear and one in front.  

Halfway through the flight, it became clear that BOTH the rear toilets
were nonfunctional.  Unfortunately, our kidneys were on fast forward.

One woman, a Shelly Winters look-alike wearing a ton of jewelry,
started to walk through the curtained entrance to the first class
area, in order to use the only remaining functional toilet on the
aircraft. The hostess stopped her, and informed her that she could not
use that toilet, because it was reserved for first class patrons
(there were exactly two on the flight).

The woman plopped back into her seat, blumly. We all looked at each
other, dumbfounded.  There were several minutes left on the flight,
and many of us were feeling that delicious tingle in our bladders.  

We tried to reason with the flight attendant, but she made it very
clear. "I'm sorry, the law is the law."  We sat there, dutifully, and
with increasing discomfort.

Finally, the Shelly Winters look-alike had enough. She lurched to her
feet, and the flight attendant moved to block the entranceway.

"I'm sorry, but the law is the law,"she repeated.  The slightly
inebriated passenger sat down in the aisle, hiked her skirt up to her
knees, looked up calmly, and said "Lady, either you get your ass out
of my way, or in about 30 seconds you're going to have about half a
gallon of piss on your nice clean carpet."  Everyone burst out
laughing, including the flight attendant. At that point, the two
people from first class appeared in the doorway. One of them said
"Look, we don't care what the law is, we don't mind if they use the
bathroom. Please, everyone come in. We're all in this together."

Instantly, 20 people jumped up! A line formed halfway to the back of
the plane. We all ignored the law.

So in response, Mr. Buckland, I would say that I appreciate the
sentiment of your comment, in the sense that I hope you meant it. That
is, it would be better for us all if our elected officials re-examined
the nonsensical speed limits in effect in many jurisdictions in
Vancouver.  These speed limits are widely recognized to be
artificially low, and achieve no purpose other than to create contempt
for the "law."

There are times, and contexts when a rigidly legalistic approach to
life can cause you to end up with egg on your face, pee in your pants,
or worse.

J.S.